Jesse Green, shown in a 2010 booking photo, is a former Garden Grove police officer facing four sexual assault charges. COURTESY OF ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Prosecutor Eric Scarbrough stared down at the courtroom floor and shook his head in disbelief. The sexual-assault trial of a former Garden Grove police officer was slipping out of his hands.

“You need to start thinking about how this case may proceed in your absence as a prosecutor,” Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals told him last week. “The defense may have a right to call you.”

Minutes earlier, a Huntington Beach detective’s testimony had produced a stunning revelation: One of his police reports had never been shared with the defense, an apparent violation of the law.

Scarbrough suggested to the court that the detective was responsible for this failure. Had prosecutors ever received the report, he said, they certainly would have shared it. Prosecutors are supposed to share evidence so the defense may prepare a response.

The detective, Michael Szyperski, told a different story on the stand: He mailed the report to the District Attorney’s Office and talked with Scarbrough about it. He even said the prosecutor had been angry during that conversation.

Goethals called the situation "disturbing." Surprise evidence was becoming a chronic issue despite this trial being nearly three years in the making. Now, near the end, another piece had washed ashore.

“We don’t hide the ball,” Goethals reminded the attorneys. “We’re supposed to be getting the truth here, not playing a game.”

The trial is to adjudicate four sexual-assault charges against a former police officer. Prosecutors say Jesse Green, 36, forcibly sodomized three women during off-duty dates in 2006 and 2009, and also raped one of them.

The testimony about the missing report spurred an unusual twist. The defense put Scarbrough on the stand to contradict his own investigator in front of the jury. Under the law, this meant Scarbrough could no longer prosecute the case.

When Scarbrough finally testified Thursday, more spectators filled the courtroom than at any other point in the trial. Scarbrough faced the defense attorney, John Barnett, and Scarbrough’s replacement, Deputy District Attorney Nicole Nicholson.

Scarbrough testified that he didn’t remember ever receiving the police report or having a conversation with Szyperski about it. In her cross examination, Nicholson portrayed Scarbrough as a busy attorney who might reasonably forget such details.

Nicholson also questioned her colleague about the district attorney's internal mail system, suggesting something that could be a concern beyond this individual trial: The evidence might have been lost in the mail.

Scarbrough said he recalled having heated discussions with Szyperski about the evidence in this case, but not this report. The detective had dated evidence incorrectly, not recorded phone conversations and failed to produce reports in a timely manner.

Szyperski was turning into a disastrous witness for the prosecution. He had repeatedly contradicted his own statements, changed the dates of events and acknowledged making multiple errors during the investigation.

“That’s another inaccuracy on my part,” he said. “It was carelessness,” he said at another point. “It was a misstatement,” he said later. "I made an inaccuracy when I testified there."

The circumstances surrounding the police report that led to Scarbrough’s removal from the case didn’t help. Szyperski said he had logged evidence improperly and wrote a report to correct the record. He insisted that preparation for a court hearing had prompted that report.

But that was impossible. The court hearing happened on March 13, 2012. The report is dated July 24, 2012. Presented with this information, Szyperski changed his testimony and said he "obviously" wrote the report after the hearing.

The police report itself also contained a new error. The document says the date that evidence was logged should have been Nov. 23, 2012. Szyperski testified that he actually meant to write Nov. 23, 2009.

At one point in discussing how the trial would proceed, the judge said he would seriously consider a mistrial if the defense wanted one. Barnett declined, coyly citing “the way the case has gone.”

The prosecution’s case against Green is largely built around the credibility of witnesses, not physical evidence. Through Szyperski and then Scarbrough, Barnett has tried to plant doubt about the credibility of the entire case.

To punish the prosecution for failing to share the police report, Goethals will instruct the jury to consider branding Szyperski and other prosecution witnesses as biased and untrustworthy. He also prohibited testimony from a new witness who prosecutors say would corroborate part of Szyperski’s testimony.

“There has to be a significant sanction imposed,” Goethals said in response to the prosecution's request for a lesser punishment. "I don't think yours is strong enough frankly."

The trial is scheduled to continue Wednesday with Green taking the stand in his defense. Goethals delayed the case a few days so Nicholson, the new prosecutor, could have more time to prepare.

Scarbrough is expected to attend the hearing, but he'll be watching from the audience. He won't be allowed to question the man he has been trying to put behind bars for years.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.